The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1887-06-05
MRS.A.T.STEWA RTSMILLIONS
ANSWER OF HENRY HILTON IN THR
SUIT OF LEGATEE BUTLER.


SUIT OF LEGATIE BUTLER.
specinc neuiaIp OF the Allegations or Fraud
and Mismapsecment By Mr.. Hilton rs Ex-
ecuter and Trustee-The Cathedral Trust.
The answer to the complaint In the suitof
Prescott Hall Butler an heir ct law and lega-
too under the will Of Mrs. Oornelia NJ. Stewart,
against ex-Judge Henry Hilton was served By
Mr.. Hilton's attorneys yesterday upon Mr..
Butler. The suit was brought last February
against Mr.. Hilton individually, and as exec-
utor and trustee under the will, and, as mat
ter Of Formally. against all other persons In.
terested in the disposition OF the real property.
Mr.. Hilton was charged with fraud In the man.
agement OF the estate, and Mr.. Butler petit
toned the Supreme Court TO set aside his acte
as executor and trustee. to appoint receiver
In his place. and to direct partition Of tho
real estate disposed Of by Mrs. Stewards will
Mr.. Butler, who Is nephew OF Mrs. Stewart,
and the husband Of one Of her grand nieces. In
also member OF the law firm OF Evarts
Choate d Beaman.
The answer to the complaint was prepared
by ex-Attorney- General Leslie W. Russell. Mr..
Hilton's counsel 1t denies that any Of the
persons mentioned In the complaint. except
Charles J. Clinch and Sarah N. Smith, were Of
the full blood OF Mrs. Stewart or Mr.. A. T.
Stewart. and alleges that the property in cues.
ton was derived BY devise from A. T. Stewart.
complaint were ths lawful heirs at law and
The. defendant, alleges that the PLAINTIFF as
sented to the probate OF the viii and codicils,
npa sptd to eas IN S M
and ex-Jldee Hilton lin which Mrs; Stewart
t spaa 6nh
residuery legateesl was obtained By MI, Hilton
endaae sha s as trusses
eae wbsb S h f lands
ried on business greater, and more
& Gshe CT hss shs
whole Of the Stewart building was owned 81
part was Ged f By S 0S eseEs ase
denies that the greater portion Of the Stewart
ssus If pY bis Il ss h
He denies mat MI Stewart owned Isrs:
his death, or that the omission to file an inyen.
tory and TO make an accounting was the fault
Tho defendant denies that he received his
legacy Of q 100000 from Mr.. Stewart on COM
dttio9 that he should perform certain services,
matters, and ayers that Mi. stewart regarded re-
81 Ssos "nd ~
and motives in his personal character and con:
her 6us5snds regard for him. f h. Denies s thas
q is vic as stated 81 the pIsintitf IN lis Dom.
lie, had given him iuif reliance IL her,
nence Mr. sss%srs tho
power power q attorney, end alleges that II was pre-
Sst NM Mr.
transferred to him for 81 100000 (the amount
denies tat Mrs. stewsrt was snorasse
as sas
s FL s S not r AK Ike h 5sdps f
which tho wholesale business had been carried
on. or for the other parcels Of land that he
her rs QUIT Claim deed for $1,000. Sept. IS, 1884,
but alleges that the property therein mem men
when he bought her interest In the Stewart
NJ sS sssssq ss
ksnsiSas az. c.; q y Rs?ssaEss, Firth ssrsss
setaally expended and advanced BY him: ne
than one-haf Of the I properly leis By Mr Stew.
art Or that ths proDefty has greatly depreci'
Mrs. Wss
and tbs paa On nsnap
family have been benefited By her. bounty to
an extent of over three Quarters Of q million
81 the original viii Is that Of Edward ss Hten:
his Ss qs aT s % err sec and ";
prvae secretarY fe The s but he denes
that no used undue influence. or that he had
originally designed will DO necessary for the
completion Of the seho9s and eathedFa &
:, tie real estate ~ IL * Mss sts%sr WI 81:
sisa n se 81 fas he as as
regards the cathedral and schools, as speedily
as possible. and that the initia' DRY steps would
o. The present t' action. He denies each and
every allegation charging undue influence.
the diminution in the value Of the estate Is due
prSHertIes LETT Sy. MI. Stewart. and not to
He also AYERS thai, most Of the transfers Of
property to him hao by Mrs steTars we're made
iins heE lifetime Ms. Stewart gave 70 Gornelia
and lot at the northeast Corner Of Fifth ayenSs
s@sxS5 r. $ ss s,s$ssrE as s
Mrs. Butler 5000 900 70 the plaintiffs son. Law
renee B9tler siooG 3 o to the plaintifs sen,
$4,000.
For an affirmative defence Mr.. Hilton alleges
In trust residuary half of the property Of Mrs.
Stewart for the purposes set forth. and that In
case the trust Is Invalid for any cause the
ligations and discharged thersfrom, and aa
trustee he Is q necessary party defendant for
the complete determination OF this action.
The defendant concludes by asking that tho
complaint be dismissed with costs.
French Csnvicts will Net be Allowed to Land.
WASHINGTON. June Assistant Secretary